The spec should be the best that technology can provide for the environment, not the most cost-effective.
Max, shouldn’t it be the best that technology can provide, and the most cost-effective ?, (which is why the Standard must be updated, if the Standard is the only tech. spec. you use ?).
As we’ve seen (with other issues), just because something meets a 10 year old (e.g.) Standard doesn’t mean it’s as good as it could be if new technology is used.
Don’t understand why one (out of three) operators has now determined there’s a serious enough issue that they may? not be fit for purpose, with everyone else still using them ? Are these manufacturing issues (defects), or has it been tabled that the minimum Standard is no longer acceptable ?
It’s all about contract spec.; use min. Standards certainly to keep it legal, but if you have other requirements over and above, spell them out to bidding manufacturers.
Also as we’ve seen (with other issues), close familiarity with exactly what requirements (e.g. testing etc...etc...) are contained in any Standard, is required in order to determine if that meets your needs.
Re. Mustang vs. HH, don't know, cost plus easier to use was the rumour........